Yes, I didn't mean that the existing functionality should change for just me, but it seems like there could be a lot done with mnemosyne that is outside the traditional "per day" type schedule, and your example is another one of those.
I've been trying to come up with a concise way to say what I'd like to do, and I think the closest I can come to it is this: 1. Start with the order that the "normal" algorithm has sorted the cards in. 2. Show the cards in that order, and respect the normal algorithm but only in as much as it determines the order to show all cards (including ones seen in this cramming session), not what day they should be shown. Repeat #2 until the cramming session is over. That is to say, do exactly what you would do in a normal session, except always assume the user wants to "learn ahead of schedule" when he hits the end of the "scheduled" + "not memorized" stack, don't use the "next rep" day as anything more than a way to sort/order the cards, and forget all of these gathered ordering metrics when the cramming session is over. On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Henrik in Oslo <[email protected]> wrote: > For me the cramming session could be improved in this way: > - A button to click that brings up dialogue: "Not yet memorised in cramming > session: xx ( the number) cards. Add tag: _____ (input-field)" > - E.g. next day I would cram the tagged subset, after a while tag a new > subset of "not yet memorised" etc > (After cramming I would probably choose to delete these subset-tags, but the > last subsets would also give me valuable input about what knowledge areas > that present me the greatest learning challenges. I could then add relevant > cards in these areas) > / Henrik > > > On Saturday, 13 October 2012 13:31:01 UTC+2, Michael wrote: >> >> Certainly closer, but my goal was to have a "mini-algorithm" in the >> cramming module separate from the main algorithm, whose results are >> only saved/used during that session. That is, if I miss something, it >> should "know" I missed it and show me that card again, within the same >> cramming session. Kind of like a full algorithm in microcosm, that >> resets every time I start the program. >> >> Others might have different wants of course, but my use was not to >> keep the results of one cram session from that to the next; it could >> all start at zero each time, but I want the cards doled out to me >> either randomly (if I haven't answered yet), or in order of most >> mistakes made on that card. Each "right" answer wipes out a "wrong" >> answer for the counting. That type of thing. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Peter Bienstman >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > What I can do is add some configuration option to the cramming plugin >> > dealing with the order in which the card are shown, like 'random', >> > 'first >> > due first', etc.. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Peter >> > >> > >> > Quoting Michael Campbell <[email protected]>: >> > >> >> I was wondering if anyone could (or was) working on something between >> >> the cramming plugin and the normal learning cycle. >> >> >> >> What I'm looking for is something that (like cramming) doesn't record >> >> or change the normal "when you see it next" algorithm, but (like >> >> normal) still presents the cards to you in a particular order; and you >> >> see the ones you miss more often (and sometimes before) the other ones >> >> that you don't. I realize this could get to a situation where you >> >> don't see SOME cards, given a finite amount of cramming time, but it >> >> would show you how many you haven't seen yet, so you'd know. >> >> >> >> I guess this would be like starting with a fresh deck with no learning >> >> data, and scheduling like normal, but instead of using "in X days", it >> >> just stores that number as a way to sort them. Something like would >> >> happen if you started with a new deck, and just kept on going with >> >> "learn ahead of schedule", ad infinitum. >> >> >> >> Is such a thing possible? (Or am I overlooking somethign that would >> >> make this a horrible idea?) >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> > Groups >> > "mnemosyne-proj-users" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > [email protected]. >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "mnemosyne-proj-users" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mnemosyne-proj-users/-/_FHDKQhTeQoJ. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mnemosyne-proj-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
